Sunday, June 30, 2013

Why don't liberals care about unemployment?

We have historically high unemployment yet neither Obama or the Democrats seem to care.

What do they care about? Legalizing millions of criminals who decided to break our laws in order to get free stuff from the US government.

This is liberal reasoning; bring in millions of new low skill workers in the middle of a seemingly unending recession when real unemployment, taking into account those who have given up hope of finding a job, is running at 11.3% just so those new workers can drive down wages. But it's ok because those same criminals will vote Democrat.

Liberalism in a nutshell is about power irrespective of the consequences to the country. That's why liberals support Obama even though the poor are getting poorer and Black unemployment is insanely high. Liberals proclaim they care and they do but only about getting power for themselves they could care less about America or Americans.

Roman Catholic Church of the Nativity

Friday, June 28, 2013

The new union busters

By suddenly providing 11,000,000 new legal workers the Democrats Immigration Bill is the biggest union busting anti-American worker bill to have crossed Congress in generations.

The CBO projects that the bill as passed by the Senate will drive down American wages for at least 12 years; twelve years of less spending money for American workers in an already ravaged Obama economy but higher profits for businesses that don't care about their employees.

Does any sane person think that this massive influx of low skill low wage workers will not impact unions?  Many union jobs don't require genius just dedication and a willingness to work hard.  The new Americans will be ideal for greedy companies who don't want to have to pay a fair wage.  The glut of desperate new Americans, between 30 and 60 million over the next few years, will be an ideal tool for businesses to use to force unions, all but government workers unions, to scale back on their salary and benefit demands.

Even better under the bill passed by the Senate the new Americans won't be eligible for ObamaCare.  Which means that businesses won't have to pay the fines or force these new workers to work less than 30 hours a week in order to avoid the huge economic impact of ObamaCare but only for formerly illegal Americans or for new immigrants.  Now we all know that when those new Americans get sick and can't afford their medical care Democrats will find a way for the hard working Americans to pay the bills.

Is it any wonder that both rich liberals, who want cheap gardeners, and unscrupulous business owners are so enthused about bringing in millions of low skill low wage workers?  The pro-legalize the criminals crowd don't send their kids to public schools nor will their children have to compete with the newly legalized Americans for jobs.

Additionally no one seems too concerned that Blacks will be disproportionately impacted since, due to the failure of the public school system in the inner cities, Blacks tend to have lower skill levels than Whites.

To top it all off the new Americans are extremely liberal, 75% support big government, and will vote in Democrats who view their way to electoral victory as stealing from the workers to give to whomever will vote Democratic.

Just as Obama did nothing to punish Wall Street for the bubble bursting despite all his rhetoric the liberals, of both parties, behind this massive amnesty bill could care less about what happens to Blacks or to the average American worker.  Liberals only care about power and they know if America allows millions of lawbreaking big government supporting people to become citizens then Democrats will have power for generations.

Liberals vs Conservatives 3

In the debate over same sex marriage liberals stake out a very self centered position. To them marriage is about the spouses and their happiness.  Keeping the institution of marriage what it has been for >2000 years is irrelevant to liberals if it means that massively promiscuous gays can't feel equal to people who do not have disordered sexual tendencies. 

From a purely scientific perspective the purpose of sex is to send one's gene's to the future via children. Gays can't do that so, once again from a purely scientific perspective, they are not right from a sexual perspective. This doesn't mean they are evil or loathsome but it does mean that redefining societies long term mechanism for having and raising children in order to placate gays is somewhat odd.

Liberals don't care about the feelings of the vast majority of Americans nor do they care about the societal consequences of equating the massively promiscuous gay lifestyle with committed monogamy--<19 8="" a="" average="" br="" cheat="" each="" ever="" every="" gay="" has="" heterosexuals="" in="" of="" on="" other="" partner="" people="" relationship="" sex="" spouse="" their="" typical="" while="" with="" year.="">

The liberal position on same sex marriage is based on liberals belief that hedonism is the best way to view life and that all that matters is short term pleasure.

Conservatives view marriage as both beneficial and sacrificial. To them marriage is usually about children and raising a family.  Conservatives realize the true blessing in a marriage are the children.  Marriages without children are not all they can be, sometimes through no fault of the partners, which is why we sympathize with couples who try but fail to have children.

Conservatives sacrifice their own personal pleasures for the greater good of their children and society.  Liberals want to redefine marriage so that gays can feel that their massively promiscuous lifestyle is affirmed.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Comb jellyfish from the Monterey Bay Aquarium

The Hidden Scandal in the Supreme Court Ruling on Prop 8

The good news is that the Supreme Court did not rule that there is a Constitutional right to same sex marriage.

The bad news is that the Supreme Court has effectively ruled that politicians can decide which laws to enforce.

Can you imagine if President Nixon had been a racist and simply decided to not enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The liberal outrage would have been heard in outer space.

Yet when President Obama decides to not enforce DOMA he's hailed by liberals for being a hero. Similarly liberals think it's great that Governor Jerry Brown of California refused to contest a judges ruling that canceled the peoples vote for Proposition 8 that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Liberals don't believe in Democracy.  It's a simple and sad truth. That's why so much of the liberal agenda has been pushed through by the courts and now by politicians who refuse to enforce the laws.

For example:
  • Roe v Wade overturned the laws of all 50 states on abortion
  • Court rulings overturned all of the pornography laws in America and ensured that porn peddlers can try and get underage kids to use their products
  • Court rulings made the criminal system a game rather than a quest for justice
  • Obama refused to enforce DOMA thereby putting himself above the judiciary and the legistature
  • Brown refused to defend Prop 8 thereby effectively short circuiting the initiative process that is a key part of Californian law--you can be sure he would have defended Prop 8 if it made same sex marriage legal
The latest court ruling, which effectively says that if one judge finds a California proposition unconstitutional and the politicians don't like the proposition the will of the people is irrelevant, is a major step toward turning our representative democracy into an monarchy.

In the past the Supreme Court has basically lied and said that their rulings were based on the Constitution. By saying that the people don't have standing to defend a law passed by the people the Court is saying that the people effectively don't have rights.

To a non-lawyer the Court's ruling is similar to saying that if someone burglarizes your house and the DA decides he doesn't like and decides not to prosecute you can't sue the burglar in civil court.

We need some lawyers in CA to sue Gov. Brown for failing to defend the peoples vote. Because if we accept the concept that elected officials can decide what laws to enforce we effectively cede immense power to the politicians.

Liberals agree with this because we know they'd scream if a conservative politician refused to enforce a law that liberals like.  Heck they scream if a conservative even tries to use the legal process to change a law liberals like.

The good news for liberals is that conservatives don't think they have the power to void laws wily nilly. The bad news for America is that liberal politicians think they do.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

The hate behind same sex marriage

If the push for same sex marriage were about tolerance and equality a flower shop owner in Washington State wouldn’t be being sued for refusing to sell flowers for a gay “wedding”.

If the push for same sex marriage were about fairness then California wouldn’t be mandating that students be taught that the massively promiscuous gay lifestyle is great.

Most gays don’t even want to get married. In the Netherlands, which has legalized same sex marriage for 12 years, only 20% of gay couples are married while 80% of heterosexual couples are married.  A “steady” gay relationship in the Netherlands lasts roughly 1.5 years on average; hardly a long-term commitment by heterosexual standards.  Gay divorce rates are 2, males, to 4, females, times higher than heterosexual divorce rates.  Additionally while married gay men average 8 other sexual partners per year.

The simple reality is that the gay lifestyle is a massively promiscuous one centered on “transactional” relationships that last less than 6 months not one designed to support long term monogamous relationships.

Given that gays really have no need for marriage why the massive political push? The answer is simple; once same sex marriage is legalized all those who oppose it on moral grounds can be punished and persecuted.

Even as we’re seeing the administration telling Catholics they have to pay for abortion inducing chemicals or sell their companies same sex marriage is already being used to persecute people who hold to a 2000+ year old tradition of Western Civilization.

There is a general consensus in America that gays should not be beaten up or denied jobs based on their lifestyle. But that’s not enough for homosexuals. They’re after revenge. They want to oppress those who dare hold that the promiscuous gay lifestyle is immoral.

If they weren’t the gay community would be condemning the gays who are suing that florist. After all there are plenty of other florists, and the florist being sued even provided recommendations to the gay “couple”, so it’s not like the gay “couple” couldn’t have flowers at their wedding. Further the florist has no problem selling flowers to the gay couple; she’s been doing so for years.  She just felt she couldn’t support as specific event, their “marriage”, she considered to be immoral.   She wasn’t condemnatory; she just said she didn’t feel right supporting something she felt was wrong.

That the liberal and gay communities are not protesting this attack on a Christians right to exercise her faith shows the true reason for the massive push for a “right” that the vast majority of gays will never use because they have no interest in committed relationships. As usual with liberals tolerance is a one-way street; we must tolerate whatever liberals like but liberals have no obligation to tolerate conservatives deeply held beliefs.

Similarly the California law that is designed to teach kids that the gay lifestyle is great is not designed to foster tolerance but rather to push one particular view of society. Children will not be taught that gays are massively promiscuous or that gays die much younger than heterosexuals. Similarly the students will not be taught that monogamous relationships are the only way to be really safe from catching AIDS because that would imply that the gay lifestyle is the reason for catching AIDS, just as smokers lifestyle contributes to their health issues.

The reality is that gays are being used by liberals as one attack on the liberals most hated adversary; people of faith.  Modern liberalism has as a core tenant that sex is a fun and consequenceless activity. That’s why liberals are so strongly supportive of birth control, abortion, and easy divorce and so opposed to chastity.  But people of faith, primarily Christians of every stripe, oppose the hedonism pushed by liberals.

The HHS mandate, the push for same sex marriage, the push to say we have freedom of worship but not the right to exercise our faiths, the radical separation of Church and state, and the media propaganda that portrays promiscuity as great are all liberal techniques to force Christians out of the public square so that liberals don’t have to hear that hedonism is bad.

The simple reality is that gays need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle. Redefining marriage is not about equality or fairness it’s about oppressing those who object to modern liberal hedonism.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

LIberals vs Conservatives 2

Conservatives believe that charity is voluntarily giving their own time and money to help others who are truly in need.

Liberals believe that charity is helping pass laws that raise taxes on everyone and then helping pass laws to direct the money raised by taxes to people who liberals believe need it.

A liberal then is someone who wants to be philanthropic with other peoples money while a conservative is someone who is willing to give up their own time and money to be philanthropic.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Liberals vs Conservatives 1

When Nixon abused power conservatives gave him the boot.

When Obama abuses power liberals extol him.

When Clinton abused power liberals said it didn't matter.

Bottom Line: To liberals getting political power for their cause justifies pretty much anything.

Friday, June 21, 2013

In some sense it doesn't matter

While our society may be crashing down and while evil people seem to be always winning it doesn't matter in that when we die and are judged our fate will not be decided based on who was elected for office or what policy the government made but rather by how we live our own life.

We can control what we do and we can look back on what we've done with pride or shame.  No one can force us to sin or do any evil for sin is in the will and only we can control our will.

In any case what suffering we have in this world is miniscule compared to what Jesus, who will judge us, suffered out of love for us.

So then be of good cheer for we are, in the things that matter most, masters of our own fate. Only we can choose to reject God, for He never rejects us, and therefore we can choose to serve Him now and forever.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Liberals hate education

People have always wondered why liberals are so comfortable with the total failure of public education in America. Sure we all understand why liberals want the schools to spend time teaching children that promiscuous sex is good and smoking is bad but why aren't liberals upset about the children not learning enough to function in society?

The answer is now clear.  Liberals are trying, through the latest immigration bill, to make 30-60 million poorly educated people with marginal English skills new citizens while Ph.D.s from other countries are waiting in line for years to enter America.  Why are the liberals doing that?

The simple answer is that a dictatorship, especially one cloaked in the mantle of free elections,  needs a poorly informed populace who are incapable of seeing through propaganda. In order to get power liberals need a lot of low information,ie ignorant, voters who actually believe they can get a free lunch if they vote for liberals.

Democracies depend on a well informed populace with strong moral values.  Liberals hate democracy; why else would Obama constantly bemoan having to deal with Congress--even when the Democrats controlled both houses--and expressing envy for the dictator who runs China? Therefore it makes sense that liberals would rejoice in the dumbing down of the American voter and rejoice the more Americans moved away from religion; that's why liberals are for freedom of worship not the right to exercise one's faith.

Dictators need sheep; ignorant easily scared animals who will blindly follow a "shepard" they think will keep them safe. While liberals are not about to officially establish a dictatorship, any more than Putin is in Russia, they are dead set on making themselves the only political force in America.

To liberals the utter failure of the inner city schools is not a bad thing. Rather it's a good thing because it ensures that most Blacks won't have the training or knowledge to see through liberal lies and vote for conservatives. That's why liberals are so adamantly opposed to school choice.  If poor Blacks could get a good education they'd see that liberals are not interested in helping Blacks but rather in exploiting poor Blacks.

Similarly liberals love immigrants who don't assimilate and learn English and who have no useful skills because those people can be scared and bribed far more easily than well educated and skilled immigrants.  And the fact that those low skill immigrants will drive down the costs of liberal servants is not considered, by liberals, a bad thing.  Which leads to another reason why liberals need to keep Blacks poorly educated; it's the poorly educated Blacks who will lose what few jobs they have to the new immigrants who will be willing to work for even less than Black Americans.

Modern liberalism is the Middle Ages redux.  Liberals believe themselves "divinely" endowed by their own brilliance with the right to rule the ignorant masses even if they have to sabotage the education system to make sure the masses are in fact ignorant. But unlike those monarchs of old who were also taught that their obligation was to serve the people not exploit them liberals feel no need to serve the masses.

Sadly if the liberals succeed everyone, including liberals, will suffer because what makes America great is the fact that Americans are not sheep. Without the majority of Americans running their own lives the prosperity and progress associated with America will simply disappear.  It's not by accident that every state that looks like the liberal vision of America's future has been a stagnant and failing place that competent people wanted to escape.

All we can do to prevent liberals from destroying America is to connect the dots for our low information friends.  Liberals oppose school choice for Blacks...Liberals support making tens of millions of new citizens who have minimal skills and who will therefore compete with poor Blacks and not the children of rich liberals...Liberals voting base is bought with the tax dollars...Liberals can't survive with well informed voters...why would liberals want to hide the truth from the average low information voter if what liberals are proposing is good for those voters?

Everything is corrupt in Obamaland

Well we now know that Obamacare is really designed to funnel money to Democrats.  California has been given $916M by the Feds to proselytize  Obamacare.  The money is going to primarily non-health related organizations which are all strong supporters of the Democrat party.

Another example of Chicago politics writ large.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

The real child molestation scandal.

Because the media hate the Catholic Church when a tiny fraction of Catholic priests did horrible things the media started on a decade plus long tirade against the Church.  Instead of covering the full extent of sexual abuse of children in America the liberal media concentrated all their attention on only a tiny portion of the problem.

While the media should have reported on the problems in the Church their attacks have, in general, only been against the Church and not against the much larger problem in public schools; student abuse in public schools could be greater than 100 times that in the Church. Similarly the rate of child sexual abuse in the general population is 2.5 to 5 times higher than for Catholic priests.

Once again a single case of sexually abusing a teen—few of the victims were prepubescent children-- by a Catholic priest is too many but the media, and liberals, fixation on Catholic priests is due to bias not a real concern about child abuse. 

If the media and liberals really cared about abused children they would have been closely covering the much greater problems in public schools, where offending teachers are still routinely shuffled from school to school, with at least as much vigor as they covered the problems in the Church.

The recent decision by the Obama administration to allow girls as young as 11 to get the “morning after” pill over the counter without any sort of parental notification is a sign that liberals really don’t mind the sexual abuse of children. Any girl that young who gets pregnant has been raped. To allow them to use the morning after pill without notifying either the police or the children’s parents allows the rapists to cover their tracks.

We know that liberals historically have apparently had no problem with helping child rapists get away with their crimes.  Planned Parenthood was caught on tape helping underage girls get abortions without reporting the statutory rapes to the police.  Yet even in the face of such video evidence the media has said nothing.

When the North American Man Boy Love Association(NAMBLA) used to march in the yearly San Francisco Gay Pride parades nothing was said by the media.  Does this mean that gays are all child molesters?  Of course not but if liberals were really interested in ending child abuse they’d be highlighting the problem in the gay community and working to make people aware of the issue. Instead there is silence.

By helping child molesters get away with their crimes, by making it easy for young girls who think they are in “love” to cover up their sexual activity without their parents’ knowledge, the Obama administration is the source of todays real molestation scandal. While the rate of complaints against priests has plummeted the Obama administration is helping molesters continue to exploit children.  Similarly by not calling Planned Parenthood out on its covering up of statutory rapes the liberal establishment is effectively siding with child molesters.

The Catholic Church has taken huge steps to reduce the misuse of children by priests as it should have. The media coverage helped make that happen which shows that shining a light on this horrible problem can have a real and very positive impact. But now that the rate of abuse reports against priests is approaching zero the real problem in our society is in the public schools and among the general population. 

If the media and liberals really oppose child molestation they should use the same aggressive tactics they used to help the Church end its crisis to help end the much larger problem of sexual abuse in the public schools and the general population.

The new child molestation scandal is that the media and liberals in general seem to have no problem helping molesters get away with their rapes or in not shining a light on the significant problem of sexual abuse of children in America outside of the Catholic Church.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Through the liberal looking glass.

In California it's ok for a city government to condemn the Catholic Church because the Church opposed active homosexuality but it's right to indoctrinate children about how being gay is great.

While we hear that the objective is to end "oppression" of homosexuals when the real objective is to force everyone to think the way liberals do; that the massively promiscuous gay lifestyle is wonderful.

Confessions of a right wing Mac user

The computers not the hamburgers!

I know Apple supports nutty things but most computer companies do; the Gates are using their money to reduce the number of brown babies in the world because liberals know all the worlds problems are due to too many brown babies.

Even though I have programmed computers, written books on computing, and I've even led teams of programmers I like a simple easy to use computer for what I do at home.

I use Photoshop, though that will have to change since Adobe is going to stop selling Photoshop and dramatically increase the price to rent it,  not GIMP.  I program in Java not C++.  I use other peoples apps whenever possible.

Bottom line is that when working on day to day stuff I want a computing experience that works not one that requires me to understand the arcania of the OS--though the fact I can use a shellscript when I need to is not a negative.

Feel free to hate me if you must but I just ordered a new iMac so I'm committed to Apple even though it is a left wing company.

I must admit it was hard not to invoke the Rush Limbaugh defense;  "I'm just one of his mind numbed robot followers and he uses Macs so I do too!" but given that his audience is the least mind numbed on the planet and I try to be honest there was just no other choice. Sigh....

A gray hairstreak that will not drive anyone to dye

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

The liberal thirst for power

Is there any crime that a Democrat can commit that liberals will not rationalize away?

Bill Clinton committed perjury in order to avoid being found guilty of sexually harassing a subordinate when he was governor of Arkansas.   Liberals shrugged it off.  Can you imagine what they'd have done if Bush was found guilty of perjury in order to protect himself from charges of say not paying his taxes?

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife multiple times and liberals said it was irrelevant. When Herman Cain was accused of having 1 affair the liberals condemned him. Maybe it was because Herman Cain is Black.

Ted Kennedy's willful inaction and probable drunk driving lead to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.  Yet liberals consider him a sainted leader.  We know how liberals would react if Bush drank because they attacked him for having been an over drinker even though he'd stopped years before he ran for office.

Barrack Obama used the IRS to attack his political foes. Liberals are saying that it was ok because those evil conservative groups shouldn't be tax exempt in the first place. Of course we all know what liberals said when Nixon tried, but failed, to use the IRS against his enemies.

Barrack Obama is behind the most massive campaign of spying against Americans in history.  Yet liberals are only bothered that the media was spied on. When Bush had targeted spying against Americans who were talking to known or suspected terrorists overseas liberals went wild.

Far more Americans have died in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush yet while liberals constantly attacked Bush they have no problem with Obama on this issue.

The only conclusion is that to liberals anything that supports liberal power is acceptable.

Truly liberals are motivated not by a desire to help others but by an unbridled thirst for power.

Monday, June 10, 2013

For Gosnell's victims.  Amazingly enough in the end Gosnell chose life.

Why we can't have ubiquitous surveilance; Obama can't be trusted.

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Liberal Oppression

We've seen that liberals are ok with using the power of government to oppress those who disagree with the hedonistic tenets of modern liberalism.

If you are a advocacy group the IRS will deny your organization tax exempt status unless your groups views are acceptable to the liberal pantheon.

If you are in the military you will be denied the right to express your religious views unless they agree with liberal theology.

If you are in the military you will be denied the right to express your political views unless they agree with liberal doctrine.

If you are a Black you will be mocked and reviled as not being Black, by rich white people, unless you stay on the liberal plantation and support all of the liberal agenda--including the mass killings of Blacks by abortion.

If you are Hispanic you will be mocked and told you're not really Hispanic, once again by rich white folk, unless you make sure to parrot the teachings of those who think they are better than you-- again with the rich white liberals.

This country was founded on the principle that the government was the servant of the people because rights flowed not from men but from God.  Modern liberals wish to replace God and they demand that all bow to the altar of liberal beliefs or be crushed by the power of government.

While seemingly addicted to the word tolerance modern liberals are in fact far more demanding of conformity than Fundamentalists--who contrary to liberal lies are not interested in establishing a theocracy-- or  Nazi's--who didn't care what you thought only that you obeyed.  Only the Communists, who are of course liberals, ever demanded the lock step obedience to a single philosophy that modern liberals do.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Some photos

Jesus Christ in the Eucharist from Our Lady of Peace Roman Catholic Church in Santa Clara CA

No I don't know why he's mad either. Maybe he uses Verizon.

Going for a stroll

Tip toe chase

HELP! Let me know if you see ads you don't like

I've decided I want to be rich as well as famous. :)

I've started the Google advertizing on this page.   I have no control over the content of the ads.

However if the ads are for bad things, say Planned Parenthood, I'll probably stop showing ads.

But since I can't see the ads I'd appreciate it if you'd comment on this post if you see any offensive or evil ads.


You know someone's guilty of something when...

They plead the Fifth Amendment.  If you're innocent you can't plead the Fifth because if you've done nothing wrong you can't honestly invoke the Fifth Amendment.  Here's what the Fifth Amendment says

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

If you've done nothing criminal you can't be a witness against yourself only a witness for yourself. While it is true that one can construct hypothetical situations where someone didn't do anything wrong but it might appear that way but those situations are probably more likely in a novel than in real life.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Sink or Swim Immigration

Those who favor legalizing millions of illegal aliens say one true thing; most Americans ancestors came to America when everyone was welcome.

The problem is that America has changed since those days; changed in ways that make the old immigration model suicidal for America.  The three key ways in which America has changed are:
  •   Many immigrants no longer feel they need to assimilate and accept the key aspects of public life in America; speaking English, the Ten Commandments—as defining morality without necessarily believing in God--, democracy, etc.
  •   Many Americans believe that everyone, including immigrants, have a right to a good, not just bearable, lifestyle at the expense of society even if they could work but don’t.
  •   While America is still a land of opportunity it is no longer as much of a land of opportunity for people with few skills and little or no education as it used to be.

In the past people came to America with the idea that they could keep their culture at home but that they would have to assimilate in public.  No one, as recently as the 1960’s, thought that ballots should be printed in multiple languages or that it was societies obligation to accommodate immigrants. Rather it was the obligation of immigrants to figure out how to fit into society.

America was never a melting pot-- Italian Americans, Polish Americans, and WASPS will always be different—but it was a place where everyone agreed to certain common beliefs; including being loyal to America not wherever they came from.

Sadly too many new would be immigrants, and their liberal enablers, don’t believe that being an American requires agreeing to some common things.  The illegal immigrants who declare that it’s their “right” to come to America and collect welfare for example.

But Jesus was not just describing Hell when He said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. America cannot stand if too many “Americans” first loyalty is either to themselves—“what benefits can I get from the government?”-- or to their country of origin.

Another key difference is that when most American’s ancestors came over it was with the understanding that they would support themselves or, if a dire need arose, they would depend on the freely given donations of friends, extended family, or their church.  No one came to America expecting the government would pay for their food, shelter, and medical care.

Today too many would be immigrants believe that once they manages to physically set foot in America the government has an obligation to take care of them.  Liberals support this because they generally don’t understand where the government gets its money.

The reality is that every welfare dollar spent on immigrants is a dollar taken out of the pockets—directly or indirectly—of hard working Americans. American families have to send their children to cheaper colleges, work more hours, or live in less safe neighborhoods because the money they earned which could have helped make their own lives better is taken by the government. 

We’ve seen the consequences of mixing immigration with welfare.  A hard working immigrant who is pulling his weight in America may bring his elderly parents over and now American families are paying for the health care of people who give nothing to the country. It’s one thing to ask Americans to voluntarily contribute to efficient charities to help immigrants who are in a temporary financial crunch but it’s quite another to tell Americans to give to the bloated Federal bureaucracy, which will then toss a bit to the immigrants, or face jail. Given that taxes are taken under threat of imprisonment they should not be used to make liberals feel good about themselves.

The simple reality is that America can’t put the world on welfare and we have no obligation to let anyone who can sneak across the border get a free ride for life.

The final difference is that in modern America there are not a whole lot of unskilled jobs waiting to be filled. When low skilled immigrants are allowed in they will compete with the poorest of Americans.  It’s interesting that the same liberals who condemn companies for offshoring jobs to the third world have no problem bringing the third world to America; maybe because most liberals need gardeners but don’t need to reduce a businesses expenses in order to turn a profit.

Given the amazingly high unemployment figures for American minorities, Black unemployment is 13.8% because the liberal school system has failed to give poor Blacks the skills they need, bringing in millions of new unskilled immigrants is either racist or totally uncaring.

But immigrants who fit into the old model, they only want a chance to succeed on their own, are a great asset for America.  How do we welcome those who have what it takes to belong here while keeping out the moochers?

The first step in fixing immigration is to stop forcing people who just want to work in America from having to become citizens.  A guest worker program would solve most of the current problems with illegal immigration.  It would allow workers to come to America, earn a fair wage, pay taxes, and not have to hide from the law.  Because the workers aren’t breaking the law they can’t be exploited by unscrupulous employers who want cheap labor. Additionally because the workers have the same expenses—taxes, medical care—as Americans they can’t undercut Americans, especially minorities, by being willing to work for less. Since these guest workers are not citizens there would be no welfare expenses, other than for emergency medical care, associated with them.

A guest worker program has the added benefit of not forcing those who dislike America, but like American money, from having to become citizens and thereby increasing the divisions in America.

We can treat those who wish to become Americans the same way most Americans ancestors were treated; sink or swim.  Neither immigrants nor their families would be entitled to any government benefits—welfare, Obamacare,etc-- for 20 years after they became citizens—potentially with a few very narrow exceptions.

If the immigrant couldn’t cut it he could either rely on private charity, which would be encouraged to help those folks who just needed a helping hand, or they could go back to where they came from—with the US providing a free ticket if necessary. 

For those who broke the law to get to America there needs to be an additional punishment. They can’t vote for at least 15 years after being “legalized”. By then if they’ve supported themselves they can be trusted to vote as Americans not criminals voting to increase their welfare benefits. This is not so cruel given that American felons can never vote.

Our ancestors took great risks to come to America in order to make a better life for themselves and their families.  The sink or swim approach would impose no burden on those who wish to be American citizens today than was born by the ancestors of current American citizens.

Feel free to follow me on  Twitter ; I won't sue you for stalking!

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Killing the rapists daughter

It is really bizarre that the same people who believe that it’s ok to kill an unborn child because she’s a girl even after that unborn child has a good chance of living outside the womb and even after the unborn child can feel pain declare that opposing killing the rapists daughter is extremist.

Those who advocate the killing of the unborn for convenience often attempt to deflect attention from the 1,300,000+ abortions of convenience each year to the < 1% of abortions that may involve rape.  I say may not because I doubt that women who are raped sometimes get pregnant but because a woman who wishes to justify her execution of her daughter has reason to self report a rape when polled even though she never actually reported a crime.

It's clear that trying to defend the general practice of abortion by debating cases where the woman is raped is a dishonest tactic because abortion advocates reject any restriction on abortion, such as preventing the abortion of an unborn child that could survive if delivered normally or outlawing sex selection abortions, and certainly do not support abortion only in the "hard" cases--rape and threat to the life of the mother.

There are several key points that are essential in discussing if it's a good thing to kill a rapist’s daughter:
  • A woman is never ever to blame for a rape.  Any man who refuses to stop when told to is totally to blame. No matter how much a woman led a guy on if she says stop or no he has no excuse to continue.  A woman should never feel any guilt when she is raped; it is not her fault.
  • A woman who becomes pregnant due to rape deserves our total support and sympathy.
  • A rape occurs when a woman says or indicates no and the guy continues. A rape does not occur when a woman says yes, other than when she is being physically threatened with violence, but later changes her mind. That latter case, advocated by some "feminists", is an insult to women who are really raped. Just as no means no we can't hold a man guilty of rape when a woman says yes unless she does so under duress.
When thinking about abortion and rape the first question to ask is should rape be punishable with the death penalty?  Currently the law, and I suspect the vast majority of Americans, do not support execution for a first time rapist.  Given that those who support abortion tend to oppose the death penalty it is also probably true that most abortion advocates wouldn't advocate the death penalty for a first time rapist.

Let's take that a step further.  Would it be ok if a woman hunted down her rapist and killed him?  It's very unlikely that anyone would support that.

The question of justice then becomes if it is wrong to kill the monster who raped a woman why is it ok to kill his daughter?  Our disdain for rapists is based on their heinous actions but a rapist’s daughter has done nothing wrong.

The answer of course is that the rapist’s daughter has done nothing to deserve death or even punishment; who doesn't feel sorry for the children of criminals because of how those children suffer when their parent is incarcerated?

In fact it’s never true that the law allows someone to kill an innocent third party who is making their life miserable. For example if a woman causes an accident while driving, a true accident where the woman did nothing wrong, she is not allowed to kill the other driver who is suing her even though the suffering due to that lawsuit can be both more severe and longer lasting than a pregnancy. 

The abortion advocates will then say that while the rapist’s daughter is innocent the mother should not be forced to carry her own daughter to birth.  On the surface this seems compelling in that who would wish to exacerbate the horrible situation a raped women is in?

However examining the situation in light of both the Golden Rule and the mother’s self-interest we will see that the knee jerk reaction we all share is in fact not what's best for the mother.

Looking at the Golden Rule, which says treat others as you'd like to be treated, it is clear that few woman would be supportive of their own mothers decision to abort them.  Therefore a woman who is pregnant via rape really can't say that killing her daughter is consistent with the Golden Rule.

Additionally when observed from the mother’s perspective it must be odd to think that the rapist’s daughter should receive a much harsher penalty than the rapist. That incongruity may contribute to emotional and psychological problems a woman who aborts her daughter may suffer from.

The disparate punishment of the rapist’s daughter versus the punishment of the rapist is not the only paradox related to this issue. Those who support abortion tend to be politically liberal individuals who also support many laws that make it harder to convict criminals, including rapists. For example if a police search turns up proof of the rapists crime that clear evidence can be thrown out if a group of lawyers decide, after months of deliberation, that the police acted improperly.  It seems odd that the same people who advocate killing the rapist’s daughter strongly support laws that help rapists escape any punishment at all.

One clear aspect of modern western law is that it is never justified to intentionally kill an innocent human being. That rule is so strong that we define the crime of manslaughter where killing a person without intending to do so can result in significant penalties.

Given that killing the rapist’s daughter can’t be justified from a moral perspective can it be justified because of the harsh impact of the unborn child on her mother?

The first thing to note is that only 50% of women who become pregnant from rape try to kill their daughters. That indicates that killing is not viewed as the ideal solution by a lot of women.

A woman who aborts her baby is going against one of the must fundamental aspects of her very nature as a woman; and not surprisingly there are adverse consequences. While modern feminism wishes to deny the nature of women it’s a simple fact that either God or 4,000,000,000 years of evolution have designed women to be dedicated to having and protecting their children.  Anyone who has helped a friend who has had a miscarriage or been gleefully told that “the baby is kicking” by a pregnant woman knows that from the instant the woman knows she’s pregnant she is emotionally attached to her unborn daughter.  That’s why a significant fraction of women who have abortion suffer long term emotional or psychological problems.  It’s really not surprising. Feminists must think women are really stupid if feminists believe that when a women looks at her new born daughter she does not think of the daughter she previously aborted. 

After a rape a women can and should realize that she has done nothing wrong; that she is completely innocent.  Yet if a woman kills her daughter she can no longer say that.  Just as the rapist used violence to “improve” his life a woman who kills her daughter because her daughters father is a monster is using violence to “improve” her own life.  

It’s important to remember that killing an unborn child does not make the mother a non-mother.  Rather abortion makes a woman the mother of a dead child. And women are not stupid; that’s why only the most extreme abortion advocates don’t say what a tough choice it is for a woman to decide to kill her unborn daughter.

Modern man condemns the ancient rule of an eye for an eye as primitive and barbaric; as it is. But in the case of killing the rapist’s daughter it is a taking a life to avoid 9 months of suffering; suffering that millions of women gladly endure each year. While being pregnant by rape is no walk in the park it is neither life threatening nor cruel since that unborn child is the mothers child no matter how evil the father is.

While it’s clear that killing the rapists daughter is both disproportionate and wrong that doesn’t mean that the raped woman should be viewed as anything other than heroic in not taking the easy, in a short term sense, way out.

While an abortion may alleviate short term suffering in the long run the mother of the rapist’s daughter will have to confront the fact that she killed her own daughter simply because that daughters father was a monster.

Caring people, and women tend to be very caring indeed, tend to feel bad when they hurt others to further their own happiness.  Few good people are comfortable with lying or stealing to improve their own situations.  Yet when a raped woman kills her daughter she’s doing just that; killing her daughter in order to improve her own life.

The fact that the raped women is in such a difficult situation and often feels alone and abandoned helps us understand that even if she decides to kill her daughter it does not mean she’s some sort of cold blooded monster.  Even though killing someone is worse than rape we all understand that a women who chooses to kill her unborn daughter is not a monster like the man who raped her is.  People who would never rape anyone can easily empathize with a woman who just wants to make it all go away.

But if we truly love the raped woman we need to acknowledge that advocating that she kill her daughter is not what’s best for her.  Instead our job should be to help the woman realize that she is a victim, that neither she nor her daughter have done anything wrong, and that her pregnancy is not a sign of shame but rather a sign of her heroic love for her daughter; a swollen belly in that case is a badge of courage not a scarlet letter.

In fact by saying that the rapists daughter can be killed abortion advocates are indirectly declaring that the woman has done something wrong; that the her daughter is somehow a bad thing that needs to be destroyed. What mother would not feel guilty if told her daughter is so bad that the world would be better off without her?  What abused mother hates her daughter because her husband is a monster? Additionally saying that killing the rapists daughter in order to pretend as though the rape didn’t happen is a good thing to do implies that a raped woman has something to be ashamed of; that’s hardly the message we should be sending to a woman who has been raped.

In the end then people who truly love a raped woman should steer her away from killing the rapists daughter both because by killing her daughter the raped woman becomes guilty of an act of selfishness when before she had been guilty of nothing and because in the long run killing her daughter will often be worse for the mother than giving her daughter the same chance the raped woman’s mother gave her, a chance at life.

In light of this reasoning the real discussion should not be about whether the few cases of pregnancy due to rape justify the 1,300,000+ abortions due to convenience that occur each year but rather about how we can support women who have been raped.  How we can show them that their daughters are not evil just because their fathers are, how we can help those women through their pregnancies, and how we can help ensure a loving home for the innocent daughter of a rapist; either by helping the biological mother or by finding a good adoptive home for the innocent child.

Defending the life of the rapist’s daughter is not extremism since defending the right to life of any innocent person is never wrong.

Declaring that an innocent unborn girl can be killed just because her father is a monster however is the epitome of extremism because killing to improve one’s quality of life is the ultimate in selfishness.  Supporting abortion in cases of rape can be far worse than a woman who has been raped deciding to have an abortion because that woman is in such a difficult place we can understand that she is not motivated by any thought out selfishness whereas the calculated advocacy of killing for convenience can only be motivated by either extreme ignorance or a cold and calculating immorality.